Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Apparent weight


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   keep. –MuZemike 05:24, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Apparent weight

 * – ( View AfD View log )

The article contains no references to "apparent weight" and reads like an attempted physics lesson (see WP:NOTTEXTBOOK) Gerardw (talk) 20:53, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Clarification: none of the references listed discuss "apparent weight" -- they discuss "weight," which has its own article. Gerardw (talk) 03:44, 29 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. Agree but think It should be merged or improved Robjp21019 (talk) 20:55, 24 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep, Of course the article can be improved a lot, but it's better kept separate from the main Weight article. It should be clear that "apparent weight" is a notable concept, when you type it in google, autocomplete makes "apparent weight" appear when you only typed as far as "apparent", and there are a huge number of different sources that mention apparent weight in the meaning it is used in this Wiki-article. It is inevitable that this article will be a bit more textbook like than the main Weight article, but that's inherent with this topic (although I think it can be made a lot less textbook like than it currently is).
 * It is a rather confusing issue with weight being defined in the way it is, that's not something we can rectify at Wikipedia. So, we're forced to clarify all those counterintuitive issues like weightless astronauts still having almost the same weight as they had on Earth, etc. etc. Such issues become notable issues in their own right, hence the existence of the apparent weight concept in the real world, and therefore also here on Wikipedia. Count Iblis (talk) 21:11, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 21:36, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * There are lots of adjective noun pairs that appear in Goggle. It doesn't mean the phrase actually indicates a subject suitable for an encyclopedia. If there are suitable references WP:BURDEN would indicate supporters of the article should enter them. Gerardw (talk) 21:40, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:BURDEN is about verifiability of the content, not about notability of the concept. --Lambiam 08:35, 25 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment. If you do the Google book search on the term, you find among the first results several physics textbooks that have the term in the title of a chapter or section, such as this one. --Lambiam 08:40, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge to Weight. This is a problematic topic with a long history of confusing, low quality content (recently with some signs of improvement, especially at Weight). There is a great deal of overlap (one definition of "weight" being essentially identical to "apparent weight", as far as I can tell). It will be easier to create and maintain one good quality article if the two are merged. (psst... please no one mention g-force...!) 86.179.4.128 (talk) 03:23, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. I think this article could be improved enough to be useful.  —Entropy (T/C) 19:00, 1 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Relisting comment: m.o.p  02:51, 2 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, m.o.p  02:51, 2 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. Apparent weight is a notable concept in its own right, and quite different to weight. Apparent weight is the amount of normal force the an object pushes up against you, so no normal force = no apparent weight, which gives people the feeling of weightlessness even though they still have a weight. E.g if someone is on space and orbiting the earth, they have a weight - they're being pulled by Earth's gravity, but there is noting pushing up against then so they feel weightless. It is a very useful article. I say keep and work on it.--Coin945 (talk) 05:52, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * By some definitions "apparent weight" is different from "weight", and by others it's the same. That's according to the articles. 86.160.208.69 (talk) 12:23, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Tipler and Mosca, Phyics for Scientists and Engineers, fifth edition, 2004, pp 90, 91 seems to agree with what Coin945 is saying. It says that if the only force acting on a body is its weight (i.e. it is in free fall), it has zero apparent weight. James500 (talk) 21:28, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * No one, so far as I know, disagrees that a body in free fall has zero apparent weight. The disagreement is whether its weight is zero. My understanding, based on what I've been told in previous discussions and also on the current contents of the article, is that this depends on which source you read. According to one definition the weight is zero. According to another definition the weight is the same as if the body were at rest. 31.53.244.181 (talk) 21:51, 5 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment Weight discusses apparent weight and is supported by WP:RS. Wikipedia is not neglecting a notable subject. The current article has zero reliable sources; therefore there is no content to actually merge anywhere. This article should be deleted/replaced with a redirect to Weight. Editors who feel there is more to say about the subject could then expand Weight with reliably sourced content per WP:BURDEN. If, at some future date, Weight grows too large, it could then be split into its own article. Gerardw (talk) 19:17, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * AfD is not for merger proposals. James500 (talk) 21:09, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Absence of sources is not the same thing as absence of content. James500 (talk) 21:49, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * From WP:N "Information on Wikipedia must be verifiable; if no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article." Gerardw (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:25, 5 December 2011 (UTC).
 * I have just directed you to a reliable third party source on this topic, an undergraduate textbook. And that is an introductory text. James500 (talk) 00:00, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * (ec)I don't have that textbook, but you're more than welcome to edit the article to add the source. As I indicated above, there is an existing sourced section, Weight, that covers the concept. So what needs to be demonstrated is that there is sufficient coverage in Tipler and Mosca, plus the currently sourced information in Weight, to justify a distinct article. Gerardw (talk) 00:19, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The burden is on the nominator to look for reliable sources and confirm that they either do not exist or are not sufficient. See WP:BEFORE. James500 (talk) 01:41, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * If I could fix the article I would have. "Apparent weight" is just a descriptive term textbook writers and science articles toss around -- but if you try to delve into too deeply it turns into a house of cards. Again, my contention is not that it doesn't merit mention, it's that it doesn't merit a separate article. WP:BEFORE suggests tagging -- it's been tagged for merge since 2009 and "needs expert" since Feb 2010. It's an unsourced, WP:OR hodepodge. Gerardw (talk) 02:17, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Google Books returns 102,000 results. Schaum's outline on applied physics, which I am under the impression is trustworthy, is on the first page. That looks like two reliable sources to me per GNG. James500 (talk) 00:17, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * There is no question that, if we were to momentarily disregard the separate existence of the topic of weight, the topic of apparent weight would be notable enough to merit a Wikipedia article. Even the most cursory Google "research" makes that pretty obvious. However, according to the information presently in the articles, as I understand it, one definition of weight is the same as apparent weight. This means that "weight" must, and to some extent already does, explain "apparent weight". Therefore there is, as far as I can see, no point in having separate articles. 86.148.152.251 (talk) 00:42, 6 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment the amount of sources on the internet is kind of irrelevant. Consult any physics school text book, or journal, or something like that, and you'll find whole chapters dedicated to the topic. I thinking its merely a case of digging, not notability.--Coin945 (talk) 10:45, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Redirect to [weight#apparent weight]]. I never understand this sillyness. You have two very closely related subjects, which are both notable. Rather than make a single article where we discuss them both we insist on making two separate articles which are either 90% duplication or one 3 line stub and one proper article. A good example of the latter is millimetre vs metre. We have good content available, why do we insist on presenting some of our readers with junk just so we can have separate article? In this case the apparent weigth article reads like a textbook and is practically unsourced, so redirect it to weight. If somebody wants to add more sourced content about apparent weight let him do so in that article. If the section ever becomes big enough that it needs to be split off (I highly doubt so) the redirect can be converted to an article again. Yoenit (talk) 11:19, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Comparing the short paragraph in the Weight article, with the present article, his is a reasonable expansion, and consistent with WP:Summary style. There are lots of ways to divide and combine topics, and we shouldn't be dogmatic--to me, its a god deal like other matters of style, there's no reason to disturb an established spin-off of this sort; equally, there's no real reason to make on if it isn't thete already unless things become unmanageably large, with detail that would confuse a reader who wants only a general article. This could be done either way: there's therefore no reason to delete even if one would prefer it the other way.  DGG ( talk ) 05:01, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Noting the criteria listed at WP:GNG, does it concern you there are no reliable sources on the article? Gerardw (talk) 22:52, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * What makes you say that? There are dozens of reliable sources on this subject, many of which are physics textbooks. --Lambiam 21:23, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * None on the current Wikipedia article. See also ]Gerardw (talk) 22:07, 11 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bryce  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 13:28, 11 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: In my humble opinion, this AfD has nothing to do with the current state of the article. It is about the sum potential of an encyclopedic article on the subject. We are (supposed to be) debating whether the article is encyclopedic or not. To that, I say yes. The sources, we'll find later, in due course. Wikipedia is continuously growing. The article gives good information. Just let it be.--Coin945 (talk) 23:07, 11 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Merge to Weight, per Entropy. Needless duplication. --Legis (talk - contribs) 03:12, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.